pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Model Release requirements going too far?  (Read 3499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 16, 2008, 10:20 »
0
How cautious do agencies need to be with regards to model releases?  I just had
five out of six videos rejected due to identifiable people and lack of model release.  While I certainly understand the importance of model releases with identifiable people, etc. as well as the need to be cautious, this seems to go over the top:

newbielink:http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-240502-high-definition-time-lapse-video-of-machu-picchu-in-peru-an-unesco-world-heritage-site-and-new.html [nonactive]

The video is a time-lapse at Machu Picchu taken from a distance as an overview of the entire city.  While I do not disagree that there may be identifiable people, they are only a few pixels in size and appear for only a couple of frames at a time.  Furthermore the clip is taken at a heavily touristic place at a non-descript day and time.  The odds that somebody would recognise himself are astronomical...  Even in this remote circumstance, could they really push for action against the buyer of this clip and argue that they are being associated with the product being sold?  ???

While they were all approved at Shutterstock, Stockxpert gave me these rejections.  Will wait and see the response at iStockPhoto....  :-\


fotorob

  • Professional stock content producer
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2008, 12:20 »
0
Wow, a model release for that video?  ::)
I know how you feel. I think though that istock is considered to be very tough on model releases, so good luck getting it past their reviewers.

Bye,
Robert

« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2008, 12:31 »
0
It will particularly annoying if iStock rejects them considering the reviewing times are around a month for videos...

The response from StockXpert to my questioning the rejection was basically that it was borderline and that they have to err on the side of caution...  Sounds like the standard "policy is policy" response with no real rationale behind it.

« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2008, 12:33 »
0
Nice clip.  Bad call, imo.

Bobbie66

  • Canon EOS...
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2008, 18:05 »
0
They are really going too far!!! There's no way to recognise face or person in this video. And I like this video, nice work  ;)

« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2008, 23:47 »
0
that is patently ridiculous - and I am a lawyer. There is no reason at all that a model release would be needed for that - it is not even a close call.

rinderart

« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2008, 00:07 »
0
Unless your the one getting sued. When that happens the sites will not help you. The TOS on all sites Put's the blame solely on you , The submitter.Get releases on everyone and everything. trust me.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
9696 Views
Last post June 23, 2006, 04:27
by leaf
10 Replies
6786 Views
Last post October 13, 2006, 11:11
by leaf
3 Replies
8810 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
9 Replies
8674 Views
Last post November 25, 2006, 10:02
by berryspun
50 Replies
21329 Views
Last post October 26, 2009, 09:42
by leon_traut

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors